Cohen 1

Kaylin Cohen
Philosophy of Science H
Emily Grosholz
10/10/15
Throughout history, many people have found it helpful to draw connections
between science and devices in order to make science easier to understand as a
whole. In this constantly progressive world in the sciences, using the metaphor of a
machine can help a great deal. More specifically, the science of biology can be easily
tied to the metaphor of a machine. The connections drawn between the two assist in
understanding the organization within nature, and specifically, organisms. However,
comparing Biology and machines can only go so far; there are many limitations that
one comes into contact with when trying to compare the two.
Nature and everything in nature can be thought of as a machine, as explained
by Descartes. Both machines and organisms are intricate. The only way we
understand them better is by taking them apart and organizing them into similar
components. Above all, the metaphor of machines is so important because its a
composite entity, all made up of parts. They way all those parts interact as a whole is
what gives a machine or organism its characteristics. Additionally, by referencing the
metaphor of a machine in biology, one will conclude that the same set of parts will
solve all problems simultaneously. Machines organize discourse and articulate hidden
assumptions. These machines became very advanced to carry out tasks which earlier

Cohen 2

generations would have considered beyond the capacities of something but an

intelligent being These ideas suggested by these self-regulating mechanisms are
both very relevant to biology rather than novel (The Century of the Gene 117). Clearly,
the science of Biology is extremely complex, and people are attempting to get
machines to become just as advanced as we are.
There are many limitations to this way of thinking. Nature isn't always as cookiecutter as a machine. There are mutations and natural disasters in nature to disrupt
biology. Machines are also disrupted, but in different ways. The external force that
made the particular machine made minor mistakes. Machines cannot actually think
like organisms can. In biology, organisms are constantly changing. Machines,
however, have to be altered if they require change. Organisms are completely selforganizing. However, machines have no purpose of their own but to be programmed
by an external maker. As pointed out in this passage, for what counts as data for one
program is often the output of a second program, and the output of the first is data for
yet another program, or even for the very first program that provided its own initial
data (The Century of the Gene 99). Machines are evidently not self-evolving. External
forces create programs for which the machines will alter, but they wont be able to
evolve on their own. Organisms, the earth, and nature are all evolving without the help
of a programmer creating it and giving it duties.
The metaphor of a computer is also very useful for biology. After the mid-20th
century, parallel processing came about with computer development. Now, huge

Cohen 3

amounts of data were able to be organized. The computer had to be created as selfcorrecting and self-directing. Computers are useful because our ability to specify
these setups outruns our ability to work out how they would behave (Philosophy of
Biology 22). The complexity of computers was now closer to resembling that of human
being than ever before. We know knew if we gave the computer directions, it would
come up with solutions far greater than a person could achieve on pen and paper:
Regularities in the operation of the computer can be used to tell us the consequences
of the scenario that has been imagined (Philosophy of Biology 22-23). They were able
to use the computer to predict many things about nature that was a mystery prior to
the invention of the computer. Undoubtedly, the metaphor of a computer in biology was
able to alter the worlds view about new advancements in the world.
Just as there were limitations with the metaphor of a machine in biology, there
are many limitations with the metaphor of a computer in biology. By explaining
organisms in a way like a computer, one has to organize it with regard to its chemical
constituents. Although its important to know the basics of an organism, these basic
makings of organisms gives no real insight into the organisms purpose within the
environment. This goes the same way as with looking at a computers basic parts. The
actual material the computer is made of gives no understanding into what the
computer actually does. Additionally, its hard to make organizational change within
computers. Since by changing a computer one has to go back to its original blueprint,
such drastic changes can wear parts out. The people dealing with computers have to

Cohen 4

be in full control of every part of operation. However, looking at an organism is so

different. Organisms cannot be fully controlled, as they are not all the same. Each
machine part is very repetitious and performs the same function over and over.
However, organisms are not as precise: we make mistakes, or try different ways of
dealing with situations. The outcome of a computer will most likely be the same every
time, but humans make their own choices because of free will. The computer
metaphor may be thought of as useless because it can hold back scientific thinking in
many areas of science.
An example of the metaphor of a machine or a computer can be the program
which allowed for gene interactions. This new metaphor was introduced for thinking
about development, one with distinct advantages over the earlier notion of gene
action (The Century of the Gene 80). This indicates that in order to build a phenotype,
the genome has a set of directions that need to be put forth into action. The DNA
sequence of an organisms genome is almost like the blueprint because it is what
builds the organism. The metaphor of this program resonated powerfully with recent
developments in computer science and it could encompass the new work on gene
regulation (The Century of the Gene 80). The metaphor here can help us understand
the true nature of living organisms.
Its very apparent that looking at a machine and computer is a useful metaphor
for biology. However, its also undeniable that this metaphor comes with many
limitations. By examining both sides, one can only think about the organizational

Cohen 5

change that has been made over time and will continue to evolve within organisms
and machines. Metaphors are now more of realities since they are incorporated so
often in individuals lifestyles.